The Instigator
Phyfe2112
Pro (for)
Winning
48 Points
The Contender
Mikegj1077
Con (against)
Losing
18 Points

The war in Iraq is not a justified war.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/3/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,409 times Debate No: 2378
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (22)

 

Phyfe2112

Pro

According to the Geneva Convention, the War in Iraq was illegal because it was a war of aggression.

Also, the war in Iraq is step one in the so called "War on Terror". The War on Terror is aimed at terrorist groups and such, and it was supposedly even proven that Osama is responsible for the 9/11 attacks. But we attacked Iraq anyway, which had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks and even was supported by the US before the first gulf war, even during the time Saddam was in power.

For proof that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, here's a word from our president:

watch to about 1:18 where he gets asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11 and the president promptly, even practically yells, nothing. And I quote "NOTHING".

The UN also found no WMD's in Iraq, and the US superseded their authority and invaded anyway.
Mikegj1077

Con

"According to the Geneva Convention, the War in Iraq was illegal because it was a war of aggression."

Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness?

"Also, the war in Iraq is step one in the so called ‘War on Terror‘."

The entire Middle east is a war zone. Pre-war Iraq harbored and funded terrorist camps. Saddam admitted during interrogation that he had planned to renew his development of WMDs, including nuclear weapons.
Debate Round No. 1
Phyfe2112

Pro

Oh, this'll be easy, if you want to do it this way.

"Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness?"

-- This still doesn't change the fact that it is illegal because Saddam and Iraq have never attacked. Saddam and Al Qaeda never got along, in fact they had a meeting in the past decade and it ended without anything being done because they couldn't help but yell at each other. I would also like to point out that my opponent does nothing with the video I linked which has one of the incidents in which Bush openly admits Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In this case, we attacked Iraq for NO reason. The UN inspection found no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com...) during the time of Invasion. The lie was fed to us to drum us to war, and thus, this war is unjustified.

"The entire Middle east is a war zone. Pre-war Iraq harbored and funded terrorist camps. Saddam admitted during interrogation that he had planned to renew his development of WMDs, including nuclear weapons."

-- I want to see proof. Give me a source where you got this information, until my opponent can do that, this is trivial at best, and has no bearing.

I urge the voter to note that my opponent does not refute that the war was illegal, and says nothing about the admittance of the president that Iraq had nothing to do with the war. In fact, aside from his one piece of evidence, which has no evidence and is thus moot, my opponent doesn't even argue the resolution, he just insults me.

I hope that my opponent's speech will be much better.
Mikegj1077

Con

"This still doesn't change the fact that it is illegal because Saddam and Iraq have never attacked. Saddam and Al Qaeda never got along…"

Illegal by whose account? America doesn't need permission by the UN or some world court to react militarily to anything.

"my opponent does nothing with the video I linked which has one of the incidents in which Bush openly admits Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. In this case, we attacked Iraq for NO reason. The UN inspection found no weapons of mass destruction…"

I'm not concerned with what president Bush says in this regard. The reason no WMDs were found is because they were removed prior to the invasion by Russian commandos and taken to Syria. Even if there were no WMDs, which was not the case, Iraq violated several other conditions, one being possession of tactical offensive missiles capable of reaching a distance greater than 300 miles (i.e. Israel). We know that because Iraq used one against us during the war. Saddam admitted to interrogators that he intended to develop WMDs after all this was over. Saddam admitted he did not believe the US would invade his country.

"-- I want to see proof…I urge the voter to note that my opponent does not refute that the war was illegal…"

Are you debating me or your audience? The UN and the US congress all authorized the use of force against Iraq. Even if they didn't, our constitution gives the president, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the authority to use military force, any time, anywhere, for any reason to protect the security interests of the United State.

"…he just insults me."

No, first I explained why, then I insulted you for your lack of intelligence. Some people can't objectively judge their own arguments. They need others to point out their flaws. That's what I have been doing.

"I hope that my opponent's speech will be much better."

My speech has been more than adequate to counter your lame-brained talking points.
Debate Round No. 2
Phyfe2112

Pro

I had hoped your speech would be much better....

Let me restate the resolution before I begin my final speech.

"The war in Iraq is not a justified war."

So my first voting issue for voters today is noticing the fact that my opponent never contradicts the resolution. He manages to insult me. He has agreed to the war being aggressive. He has cited the constitution as a reference to why the president can go to war at any time. Yet he does not in any way prove that war is justified.

So now an argument on each point he brought up in his last speech.

"Illegal by whose account? America doesn't need permission by the UN or some world court to react militarily to anything."

--On the contrary. America agreed to be a part of the U.N and to abide by its rulings. It was your America that pushed for being a part of the U.N. Let me show you the disadvantage to us not following international law as put forth by the U.N. We break international law and we simply justify anyone else breaking international law. We are supposed to be the great and all powerful moral nation, but instead you are suggesting to me that we do not have to abide by the very law which we have helped create and have a great say in!? What kind of message does that send to every other country in the world? Plain and simple, "forget international law, we can do what we want, look at America." Which in turn leads to what? Plain and simple, "Hey! That nation has oil we need..... WAR!!!" More wars = more deaths = less justification.

Also let us take a gander at the very last thing you said, "to react militarily to anything". Wait a minute..... I thought you said this was a war of aggression? Wasn't this your very first response to everything I said:

"Yes. When you go to war you are aggressive. Dumb. Got better stuff numbness? "

Yeah thats right. We weren't responding to anything. We attacked on our own accord despite the fact there was no proof of Iraq having anything that could threaten us.

Next.

"I'm not concerned with what president Bush says in this regard. The reason no WMDs were found is because they were removed prior to the invasion by Russian commandos and taken to Syria. Even if there were no WMDs, which was not the case, Iraq violated several other conditions, one being possession of tactical offensive missiles capable of reaching a distance greater than 300 miles (i.e. Israel). We know that because Iraq used one against us during the war. Saddam admitted to interrogators that he intended to develop WMDs after all this was over. Saddam admitted he did not believe the US would invade his country."

--Regarding your first two sentences. Have an ounce of proof for that? I challenged you to bring me proof in your last round. You brought me none. As much as your opinion fascinates me it doesn't actually stand up in a debate round. I'm rather certain I hadn't quite heard our government mention WMDs being deported from Iraq to Syria via Russians. That would seem like a pretty important piece of information Mr. Bush forgot to inform me about.....

--Then you go on to say Iraq violated other conditions. Even if you had some amazing piece of proof on this to give it credibility let me give you a similar scenario:
I am charged with bringing a sub-machine gun to school. This isn't true, but later they find I actually had a knife. So first off they hold me on a charge that is false, justified? Secondly they basically destroy me (Iraq is looking pretty bad right now) because of the false charge only to find I carry a knife. Also justified? I think not.

We didn't invade Iraq because it was carrying tactical offensive missiles. In fact prior to our invasion of Iraq we were giving them weapons and helping them develop weapons.

http://www.fas.org...

Oooo la la. Congressional record Sept 20, 2002 clearly states we have helped Saddam Hussein acquire biological weapons.

So lastly you tell me that Saddam admitted to all of this before he died. I challenged you for a source. You have not brought me one. Even if you could bring me one I think three things:

1. What are the chances that our government may have lied in order to convince us that the war was justifiable in some way after all?

2. A guy who just had his entire country blown apart by the United States admits that after this was all done he was planning on building some WMDs. Thats weird..... Its almost like he hated us or something?

3. Similar scenario. Guy shows up at my doorstep, I beat him to a pulp, interrogate him and get him to admit that at some point in the future he may have had plans to develop something that would hurt me. I kill him, its the obvious solution. That was justified =) !

So lets go over a brief scenario of what has happened so far. Country with largest amount of WMDs invades a country on the pretense that they might be developing WMDs. The large country breaks international law while doing this, an international law they helped create. Country with most WMDs then finds out that the country they invaded doesn't actually have WMDs so they (possibly) accuse country of something else. This (possibly) being that the country they invaded has other weapons, which would seem very strange indeed considering that the country with WMDs gave them weapons. Thus country with many WMDs bombs them to the ground.

Sounds..... hmmm, hypocritical? =)

Next.

"Are you debating me or your audience? The UN and the US congress all authorized the use of force against Iraq. Even if they didn't, our constitution gives the president, as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, the authority to use military force, any time, anywhere, for any reason to protect the security interests of the United State."

--To clear up the small misunderstanding you are having with yourself at the start of sentence three, they didn't.

Then you go on to say that the constitution gives the commander-in-chief the right to protect the security of the United States. So despite the whole international law issue, let me point out that Iraq was a POTENTIAL THREAT. They didn't pose a threat to us, and there is no hard evidence to suggest they did. We are not justified in destroying POTENTIAL THREATS, because guess what, every nation can be a POTENTIAL THREAT. This would be like me once again killing the guy who came to my door because I thought he might be a POTENTIAL THREAT. UNJUSTIFIED.

Next.

"No, first I explained why, then I insulted you for your lack of intelligence. Some people can't objectively judge their own arguments. They need others to point out their flaws. That's what I have been doing."

--Objective: (adj) intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

You're right, objectively judging my own arguments is rather impossible because it is impossible for me, or you for that matter, to approach any circumstance with 0 bias.

The rest of this speaks for itself.

Last.

"My speech has been more than adequate to counter your lame-brained talking points."

--LOL

Vote for Pro. War was not justified.
Mikegj1077

Con

"The war in Iraq is not a justified war….So my first voting issue for voters today is noticing the fact that my opponent never contradicts the resolution."

What "resolution" are you referring to? Your own? Who needs to approve a war to make it legal before it is justified? Both the United Nations and US Congress AUTHORIZED the use of military force if Saddam failed to comply with UN conditions (there were many not complied with).

"He has agreed to the war being aggressive. He has cited the constitution as a reference to why the president can go to war at any time. Yet he does not in any way prove that war is justified."

How would you like the question answered that a social science major would understand? Whether Bush had the right to initial military action given UN resolutions? Or rights grated to the president in our own constitution? Or whether war was justified in your mind? I am not concerned if you agree to it or not.

"--On the contrary. America agreed to be a part of the U.N and to abide by its rulings. It was your America that pushed for being a part of the U.N. Let me show you the disadvantage to us not following international law…"

The UN's authorization of military force was incidental to Bush's action. The US should never recognize "International Law" when it conflicts with our own constitution or our own economic or security interests.

"What kind of message does that send to every other country in the world?"

Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of us? We don't have to kiss anyone's sss.

"Hey! That nation has oil we need..... WAR!!!" More wars = more deaths = less justification."

For a guy who crows about his academic credentials, that was a really simple set of conclusions. We would be less dependent on oil if the fuzzy-head tree-hugging liberals in this country would allow domestic oil production. These freaks set us back 25 years with their 1970s anti-nuclear power campaigns.

"Wait a minute..... I thought you said this was a war of aggression?"

Yes. War is by its nature, aggression. Do you know how to win a passive war?

"Yeah thats right. We weren't responding to anything. We attacked on our own accord despite the fact there was no proof of Iraq having anything that could threaten us."

Saddam's regime, had it continued (and by Saddam's own accord), would have jeopardized world peace by developing WMDs and eventually using them. Saddam already killed over 100-thousand Iranians, invaded a sovereign country (Kuwait) and was poised to invade another (Saudi Arabia) when we stopped him with military force.

"Then you go on to say Iraq violated other conditions. Even if you had some amazing piece of proof on this to give it credibility…."

How about the wreckage of the offensive missile Saddam used against us? Military officials displayed the proof when it happened. Unlike you, I was paying attention.

" let me give you a similar scenario:
I am charged with bringing a sub-machine gun to school. This isn't true, but later they find I actually had a knife. So first off they hold me on a charge that is false, justified? Secondly they basically destroy me (Iraq is looking pretty bad right now) because of the false charge only to find I carry a knife. Also justified? I think not."

Now you're a lawyer? You give these outlandish examples to prove your point. Find a more realistic scenario. You can not, and will not, be charged with bringing a machine gun to school if there is no credible evidence you either possess one or have demonstrated you‘ve used one in the past. Secondly, there is a big difference between a machine gun and a knife. A long-range offensive missile capable of delivering WMDs to Israel is a recipe for a retaliatory nuclear attack by Israel upon Iraq where millions of non-combatants would be killed. Lastly, the same rules that apply to our country regarding our security do not lend themselves to a courtroom. We don't have to give our enemy a fair trial. Our only objective should be to win, and do so without having to be hamstrung by rules dictated either by our enemy or disinterested third party countries that don't like us anyway (i.e. UN, world court).

"We didn't invade Iraq because it was carrying tactical offensive missiles. In fact prior to our invasion of Iraq we were giving them weapons and helping them develop weapons."

When is your self-proclaimed historical expertise going to kick in? I've been waiting for over a week. You well know that the US helped Iraq in its war against Iran. The US correctly presumed that either country would destabilize the region if either got too powerful. It is not uncommon for former allies to be in conflict at some future time. We backed communist Russia against Hitler even though subsequently the USSR turned into an evil empire.

"Oooo la la. … I challenged you for a source. You have not brought me one. Even if you could bring me one I think three things…our government may have lied in order to convince us that the war was justifiable in some way after all?"

Do you believe we landed a man on the moon in 1969?

"A guy who just had his entire country blown apart by the United States"

Quit using hyperbolizes. That's not historian-like. Iraq is up and running. Schools are open and new ones are being built. Power is back on line. Commerce is at pre-war levels. Iraqis can even vote for their own leaders.

"Similar scenario. Guy shows up at my doorstep, I beat him to a pulp, interrogate him and get him to admit that at some point in the future he may have had plans to develop something that would hurt me. I kill him, its the obvious solution. That was justified =) !"

More outlandish scenarios. Had you evidence that your friend was going to kill you and you took the initiative and kill him first to prevent yourself from being killed, then you should consider that to be a favorable outcome, whether it is justified or not. No?

"So lets go over a brief scenario of what has happened so far. Country with largest amount of WMDs invades a country on the pretense that they might be developing WMDs…."

Your premise is decidedly anti-American. Mad dictators and misfits like Saddam and Hitler are not entitled to the same things we are.

"Then you go on to say that the constitution gives the commander-in-chief the right to protect the security of the United States. So despite the whole international law issue…"

Absolutely yes. International law will never trump our own constitution.

"let me point out that Iraq was a POTENTIAL THREAT. They didn't pose a threat to us…"

Well, cancer is a potential threat, even if you don't die today. So let's leave it alone.

"You're right, objectively judging my own arguments is rather impossible because it is impossible for me, or you for that matter, to approach any circumstance with 0 bias. "

Zero bias is not necessary when deciding issues like war and peace. Because any decent American is always bias in favor of America. Being biased does not preclude making the right decision on America‘s behalf. It is sort of required to force it into the end zone. It's a question of intelligence and motive, and whose interests are involved. I must say that it was fun watching you stumble over your own self-worth. Try to put more emphasis on content and historical precedent next time.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
Cancer isn't a "potential" threat, it's an ACTUAL threat.

"Any decent American is always bias in favor of America..."
These insults do nothing to sway me to vote for you. You might think about leaving them out of future debates.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
I know what amendments are. Which one are you referring to? The first ten amendments to the constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights, together with the constitution, collectively, are referred to as the "constitution." Then there are subsequent amendments. The First ten amendments "limit" the power of government. However, none of the amendments have anything to do with either foreign policy or the powers of the president over the military. The legislative branch can declare war and fund or defund the war and the military, an the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces. What part of the constitution (and its amendments) don't you understand?
Posted by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
do you know what an amendment is Mike? Check those out sometime when you get a chance states the things I said pretty clearly.
Posted by Mikegj1077 9 years ago
Mikegj1077
"according to our constitution, the president needs to clear "a war" with congress before going into it."

I don't recall ever reading that in the constitution. Could you cite it for me?

"We must have a declaration of war before we go to war…"

No such argument is implied by the constitution. If fact, the two articles, one giving congress authority to declare war, and the other, which designates the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, can be separately interpreted as being exclusive of one another. Think about it. Congress can declare war, but can't force the military to fight the war or define its objectives. Only the president can do that. On the other hand, the president can order the deployment of military troops and define its objectives (as commander). Congress can cut off funds to the military, which would defund and end a non-declared war.

The War Powers Act following the Vietnam war is unconstitutional in my opinion, but even that act recognizes the president's authority to deploy troops at any time to preserve the security of the United States. Finally, define "war." If we use your scenario of war, I.e. first congress authorizes, then the president acts, we'd put ourselves in a dangerous position. If a hostile force launches a nuclear missile at us, with 30 minutes until impact, there would be no time for congress to pass a declaration of war. The president would have to act alone to intercept the missile. Is that an act of war not authorized by the president?

"and Bush never got that from congress, so it is an illegal war..."

Congress authorized the use of military force to force Saddam to comply with UN conditions. Every year since then congress has authorized money to fund the war, including the assignment of General Petraeus to command the "surge" and post war deployment. If you are seeking permission from congress, I think we have it.
Posted by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
Voted Pro for the argument and the fact that I agree. The blind patriotism of Con and the snide, irrelevant insults made it all the easier.
Posted by shutterbug13 9 years ago
shutterbug13
Have to side with Phyfe here. In the immortal words of James Madison - "The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."
Posted by Korezaan 9 years ago
Korezaan
"My speech has been more than adequate to counter your lame-brained talking points."

I don't think so.

"Well, cancer is a potential threat, even if you don't die today. So let's leave it alone. "

You just conceded the debate.

I affirm.
Posted by Yraelz 9 years ago
Yraelz
Going to have to vote for Phyfie on this one. Half of his arguments went dropped in the last speech or were straw manned. Nice debating.
Posted by nebosleeper 9 years ago
nebosleeper
Mike, according to our constitution, the president needs to clear "a war" with congress before going into it. We must have a declaration of war before we go to war, and Bush never got that from congress, so it is an illegal war. Yes according to that admendment the president has the power to got to war for 60 days with out it, but then must get approval from the congress. Whcih has yet to be done, so this IS AN ILLEGAL WAR.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Crust89 8 years ago
Crust89
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Ithuwakaga 9 years ago
Ithuwakaga
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by polka-dots323 9 years ago
polka-dots323
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SamuelAdams 9 years ago
SamuelAdams
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Phyfe2112 9 years ago
Phyfe2112
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by nik123_kim 9 years ago
nik123_kim
Phyfe2112Mikegj1077Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03